It is currently Thu Jan 18, 2018 2:10 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 32 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Dec 12, 2009 1:49 am 
Dot Com Dom
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
Norman Z McLeod's 1933 adaptation of Alice in Wonderland is coming out from Universal on March 2. Edward Everett Horton as the Mad Hatter? Now that's good casting


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Sat Dec 12, 2009 7:00 am 
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 10:09 am
Fabulous! I never even heard of the film, but with Horton in THAT role it sounds like a blind buy.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 12, 2009 9:31 am 
Dot Com Dom
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
Not to mention Cary Grant as Mock Turtle and WC Fields as Humpty Dumpty! This movie sounds insane in a good way


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 12, 2009 11:35 am 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 7:30 pm
Location: Texas
Terrific! I caught this several years ago on Turner Classic Movies (I don't believe they've shown it since), and it's pretty...out there. As many have said before, most of the actors (like Grant) are unrecognizable behind their Disney Land-esqe masks and costumes, but there's a lot to enjoy about this somewhat over-the-top affair.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 12, 2009 2:28 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 7:30 pm
Location: Texas
Tentative artwork, courtesy of ClassicFlix.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 12, 2009 2:55 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm
I just hope Universal doesn't find a way to screw this up too.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 12, 2009 2:57 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am
Hilarious-- they create box art that looks so animated that they're forced to write "the LIVE ACTION classic.."

They way they rendered it it looks like the half-animated, half-live action Czech-Soviet classic "A Deadly Invention."

The film actually looks pretty damned cool:

Image
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 12, 2009 3:37 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 9:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO
domino harvey wrote:
Not to mention Cary Grant as Mock Turtle and WC Fields as Humpty Dumpty! This movie sounds insane in a good way

...and Gary Cooper as the White Knight, Charlie Ruggles as March Hare, and a Walrus and Carpenter sequence animated by the Max Fleischer Studios.

With screenplay by Joe Mankiewicz and William Cameron Menzies!

Here's the credits sequence (along with the rest of the film, if you like) at YouTube.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 12, 2009 4:36 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am
Charlie Ruggles makes me ill. After a long, Ruggles-free stretch, I watched a nice clean print of Murders In The Zoo which I hadn;t seen inna dogs age... and christ the man causes my bones to break out in hairline fractures, and my ears to poof smoke.

"Put down that hatchet NOW, Herr Schreck.. you will NOT run manic up and down 5th Avenue in your bare feet swinging that thing... rather, you will turn OFF the movie NOW."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 12, 2009 7:56 pm 
Not PETA approved
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada
Any word on whether this will be the original 90 minute version, or the recut 77 minute version?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 12, 2009 8:00 pm 
Dot Com Dom
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
77 minutes version


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 12, 2009 9:27 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 8:01 pm
Location: WellyYeller
Schreck for your next birthday I'm sending you a copy of Norman Tokar's The Ugly Dachshund - one of those mind breaking 60s Disney family pictures with aberrant parents (including Suzy Pleshette) and the canines substituting for children. Charlie plays the hapless comic interest as the vet and he's as funny as a hatfull of arseholes.
His one (and only) great turn is in Bringing Up Baby.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 12, 2009 9:31 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 7:30 pm
Location: Texas
Wow, what's with all the Ruggles hate? In addition to Bringing Up Baby, I thought he was very funny with Edward Everett Horton in Trouble in Paradise.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 12, 2009 9:37 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 8:01 pm
Location: WellyYeller
Well, Horton also induces teeth grinding, diarrhoea and skin rashes in me.

But his great moment in Trouble is when Herbert Marshall puts him off the scent by whispering something unspeakable into his ear about "Constantinople".

And he is fantastically good, flawlessly cast and very moving in Summer Storm. (But the whole movie exists in the stratosphere. )


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 13, 2009 12:11 am 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:03 pm
Location: Baltimore, MD
This looks awesome.

Are remakes our best hope for more classic film releases? We've been seeing a lot of old Sherlock Holmes movies released in the past couple of months. I'm not really complaining, just happy to have this stuff released at all, but it's interesting that that's how things seem to be going.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 13, 2009 12:59 am 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 7:30 pm
Location: Texas
solaris72 wrote:
Are remakes our best hope for more classic film releases?

Yes, that pretty much sums it up. Whenever a remake of a classic film appears, you can usually expect the studios to lavish some sort of special treatment on the original to cash in. It's great for those of us who want to see the original, but at the same time it's a shame the originals can't garner equal treatment on their own. Let's just be glad this wasn't relegated to VOD.

In addition to this version, Warner Brothers is also re-releasing the 1966 BBC adaptation of Alice. Now if only someone would release a good edition of the 1972 Fiona Fullerton musical...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 13, 2009 8:27 am 
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 10:09 am
david hare wrote:
Well, Horton also induces teeth grinding, diarrhoea and skin rashes in me.

Makes me really sad to hear that, but good that you at least mention "Trouble in Paradise" (haven't seen "Summer Storm"). But what about "Gay Divorcee" and "Top Hat"? Or "The Merry Widow"? Sure, he's regularly cast as a dolt, but he plays these parts with a visible delight in this doltishness and with such charm that I can't help getting in a good mood everytime he appears on screen (not laughing at him, but rather being delighted by the wittiness he brings to these roles). Have just watched that brief excerpt from "In Caliente" on the Busby Berkeley Collection extra disc... another exceedingly silly but utterly nice moment.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 13, 2009 5:46 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 8:01 pm
Location: WellyYeller
In Caliente shows him in a particularly obnoxious light. Im glad he gets his comepuppance from the man-eating Judy Canova ("That aint hay.. that's the USA".)

My problem with Horton, like another poster's with Marius Goring is that he's such an unrelieved nelly. And he doesnt particularly shine in the company of other professional sissies like the sublime Franklin, or Grady Sutton or Andy Devine.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 13, 2009 7:44 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 10:09 am
I see what you mean, but I wonder whether this is just our modern reaction to it. Recently I gave the Korda/Powell version of "The Thief of Bagdad" to a friend of mine who had never seen that film (or something like "The Adventures of Robin Hood" or "The Sea Hawk") before. While he loved that film, unsurprisingly, he still had the impression that it looked like a postmodern and very camp or gay parody of some other, 'serious' films of the time. Now, he of course knew that this wouldn't be the case, but it somehow made me think about whether the audience of the time really perceived that film or - to come back to this topic - Horton's screen persona in the same way that we perhaps tend to do today. In other words: would the audience of the 30s have perceived Horton as obviously 'nellylike' or even only as gay (in a very general sense) as an audience of our time perhaps would? Or would he rather have appeared more as a 'funny character' or comedian in a less specific way?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:12 am 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 12:58 pm
It may be splitting hairs, but I think Horton's general persona in the 1930s was more "milquetoast" than "pansy" or "sissy," but he does come pretty close in The Gay Divorcee (c.f. "Let's K-nock K-neez"). Compared to some of the more notorious sissies of the day (Pangborn, Ferdinand Gottschalk, Barnett Parker), Horton is practically John Wayne.

But we've already covered a lot of this ground here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 14, 2009 7:18 am 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 10:58 pm
Location: Tokyo, Japan
This film was supposed to be in the Universal WC Fields set but was pulled at the last minute.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:45 am 

Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 12:39 pm
Location: Lebanon, PA
Mr_sausage wrote:
Any word on whether this will be the original 90 minute version, or the recut 77 minute version?

There's a 90 minute version? Is it even still extant?

manicsounds wrote:
This film was supposed to be in the Universal WC Fields set but was pulled at the last minute.

Possibly because Fields is so unrecognizable I wonder if it's even him inside that Humpty Dumpty get-up & if he didn't just dub the part.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:10 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am
Feego wrote:
Wow, what's with all the Ruggles hate? In addition to Bringing Up Baby, I thought he was very funny with Edward Everett Horton in Trouble in Paradise.


A great director at the very tippity top of his game in his great masterwork (with an incandescent script) can tie a nice bow on just about anyone.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 14, 2009 2:33 pm 
Not PETA approved
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada
HarryLong wrote:
Mr_sausage wrote:
Any word on whether this will be the original 90 minute version, or the recut 77 minute version?

There's a 90 minute version? Is it even still extant?

Apparently the version originally released by Paramount was 90 minutes long. When Universal later bought the television and home video rights the movie was cut to 77 minutes. I have no idea if the earlier cut still exists.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 20, 2009 12:21 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 9:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO
Mr_sausage wrote:
Apparently the version originally released by Paramount was 90 minutes long. When Universal later bought the television and home video rights the movie was cut to 77 minutes. I have no idea if the earlier cut still exists.

I've seen that (indicating that it was cut by Universal to fit in a 90 minute television block with commercials) at Wikipedia and a couple of other places, but without any sources. It may have actually been cut by Paramount before its theatrical release. The 35mm nitrate print owned by UCLA clocks in at 76 minutes and their AFI catalogs of those years indicate that was the playing time upon general release.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 32 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Calvin, Majestic-12 [Bot]


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group




This site is not affiliated with The Criterion Collection